THE pensioner you’ve just allowed ahead of you in the queue at Lidl might not be quite as sweet as she seems. If she’s anything like the respondents to a recent survey by Gransnet, she has decided not to leave a penny to her children or grandchildren but to spend everything she’s got before she goes. Frankly it’s a wonder she’s not buying her baked beans in Harvey Nichols.

Gransnet, “the busiest social networking site for the over 50s”, asked 1,000 participants aged 50 to 70 what they plan to do with their money in the autumn of their years. One in six said they intended to run through their funds and enjoy themselves to the full rather than put aside anything to help their younger relatives. Even among those less intent on living the high life until their last puff, four-fifths had not given any thought to how they might reduce the impact of inheritance tax on their heirs, although the vast majority agreed that it should be scrapped.

Clearly those in the me-first category feel they deserve a bit of pampering, and are entitled to spend what’s theirs. Such beliefs explain the pension-pot dippers who so alarm the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are squanderers rather than squirrels, unable to bear the thought that money salted away for their old age would never be claimed if they were to shuffle off tomorrow. It is like a tenner found down the back of the sofa that’s burning a hole in their pocket, a windfall they must spend.

A few of the grannies and grandpas polled have bucket lists of treats to look forward to. Round-the-world cruises loom large, whereas improving the prospects of their nearest and dearest is markedly absent. The Presbyterian part of me can’t help but disapprove of their over-riding interest in number one. You could understand it better if their offspring were rich but, barring high-fliers in lucrative professions, how many children are well-off by the time their parents start drawing their pension? Even those who are loaded usually have lifestyles that require more money than most of us will ever possess unless we win the lottery.

Yet are these sybaritic elders as hard-hearted or misguided as they seem? It’s entirely possible that many of the so-called selfish baby-boom generation have already shelled out to help their offspring buy houses, or pay their grandchildren’s university fees. It’s equally possible that their would-be heirs are actively encouraging them to think only of themselves.

I have lost count of my friends with ageing parents who are exasperated at their reluctance to splash out, be it for a new kitchen or car, or a luxury holiday, or someone to help trim the hedge. They urge them repeatedly to live a little and dig into their savings, if it will do them good. No matter how often they hear it, however, such parents seem deaf to the idea that not only can their grown-up kids look after themselves but, more importantly, they also want to see their mum and dad have a bit of well-earned comfort or fun.

Yet not all children are as loving, or unmaterialistic. The number of wills contested in court has risen in recent years. Partly this is because of perceived unfairness when remarried parents’ estates are carved up between an extended second family or, worse, simply vanish into the new spouse’s bank account. Far more unexpected, however, is the increased number who think their offspring are perfectly comfortable already and thus leave their money to more deserving friends or causes.

In theory, not leaving your children more than a token sum if they are already well provided for seems eminently sensible. You might even call it enlightened.

How much more beneficial to society at large to spread cash beyond the family, rather than add to the coffers of the already favoured, thereby perpetuating the age-old spiral of the rich getting richer. You don’t need a degree in political sociology to see the impact of inherited wealth on the fortunes of the few, many of whom enjoy opportunities and reach positions of authority unattainable to those whose grandparents can only dream of opening a Junior ISA for them.

No wonder that inheritance was one of the great themes of the Victorian novel, the stuff from which endless dramas could be spun. For decades it fell out of favour as a subject, deemed old-fashioned, irrelevant or elitist in the era of the welfare state, comprehensive education and our much-mooted meritocracy.

In the wake of the last global financial crash, however, I doubt if there’s been a more pressing issue for some families, no matter their rank or income. More than at any time since the Cold War, the world feels disturbingly precarious: banks no longer rock solid, job security a quaint concept from the distant past and property prices sky-high. Following the vote for Brexit there’s also a palpable sense of unease about what lies ahead.

For individuals, if not novelists, inheritance remains as powerful a matter as it was in Anthony Trollope’s day. Regardless of the sums involved and the impact they have on those who inherit, the passing down of money, belongings or property to younger generations holds a significance that far outweighs their material value.

A bequest is one of the few occasions when money’s meaning is more than simple arithmetic. In such circumstances it becomes an expression of care and love, of handing on the baton and indicating that the deceased wanted to help improve the lives of those who follow after them. An inheritance says that even though the bequeather will not be there to see what happens, they are still part of it.

When making a will it is almost impossible to picture the day when its contents will be read as the last tangible expression of your feelings. It’s no surprise that, when an inheritance is not evenly divided,Here’s to the baby boomers who there is so much anger and squabbling over who gets what.

Lawyers make a mint out of contested estates and unexpected claims and the fall-out can ruin marriages and destroy family relationships forever. Since rancour can endure for generations, the deceased’s legacy in this sense can long outlive their inheritors.

None of this means that grandparents or parents should think their money is not their own to spend or give away as they like. Despite the law that decrees every child is entitled to a percentage of their parent’s movable possessions even if they are cut out of the will, there are very few cases where any of us really has a right to an inheritance.

It would be an avaricious child who expected or insisted upon it. But it would also be a cold-hearted parent who, if their wishes were not conventional, did not explain, long before they died, what they intended to do and why. There are no rules about what you should hand down or to whom. The only thing you do not want is to leave your heirs with unanswered and painful questions.